Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33461523›Full record

Observational studyBMC cancer2021

"SQiD, the Single Question in Delirium; can a single question help clinicians to detect delirium in hospitalised cancer patients?" running heading Single Question in Delirium" (Bcan-D-20-01665).

Megan B Sands, Swapnil Sharma, Lindsay Carpenter, Andrew Hartshorn, Jessica T Lee, Sanja Lujic, Megan E Congdon, Angus M Buchanan, Meera Agar, Janette L Vardy

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. NEWS2 and the older person.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2022
    Article
  8. The Dilemma of Treating Delirium: the Conundrum of Drug Management.Current treatment options in oncology · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Megan B SandsUniversity of New South Wales, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Meg.Sands@unsw.edu.au.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1154-9037
Swapnil SharmaUniversity of New South Wales, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Lindsay CarpenterUniversity of New South Wales, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Andrew HartshornConcord Cancer Centre, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jessica T LeeConcord Cancer Centre, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sanja LujicCentre for Big Data Research in Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Megan E CongdonUniversity of New South Wales, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Angus M BuchananGosford Hospital, Gosford, NSW, Australia.
Meera AgarCentre of Cardiovascular and Chronic Care, University of Technology Sydney Faculty of Health, Ultimo, Australia.
Janette L VardyConcord Cancer Centre, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimA serious syndrome for cancer in-patients, delirium risk increases with age and medical acuity. Screening tools exist but detection is frequently delayed or missed. We test the 'Single Question in Delirium' (SQiD), in comparison to psychiatrist clinical interview.

methodsInpatients in two comprehensive cancer centres were prospectively screened. Clinical staff asked informants to respond to the SQiD: "Do you feel that [patient's name] has been more confused lately?". The primary endpoint was negative predictive value (NPV) of the SQiD versus psychiatrist diagnosis (Diagnostic and Statistics Manual criteria). Secondary endpoints included: NPV of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), sensitivity, specificity and Cohen's Kappa coefficient.

resultsBetween May 2012 and July 2015, the SQiD plus CAM was applied to 122 patients; 73 had the SQiD and psychiatrist interview. Median age was 65 yrs. (interquartile range 54-74), 46% were female; median length of hospital stay was 12 days (5-18 days). Major cancer types were lung (19%), gastric or other upper GI (15%) and breast (14%). 70% of participants had stage 4 cancer. Diagnostic values were similar between the SQiD (NPV = 74, 95% CI 67-81; kappa = 0.32) and CAM (NPV = 72, 95% CI 67-77, kappa = 0.32), compared with psychiatrist interview. Overall the CAM identified only a small number of delirious cases but all were true positives. The specificity of the SQiD was 87% (74-95) The SQiD had higher sensitivity than CAM (44% [95% CI 41-80] vs 26% [10-48]).

conclusionThe SQiD, administered by bedside clinical staff, was feasible and its psychometric properties are now better understood. The SQiD can contribute to delirium detection and clinical care for hospitalised cancer patients.

Indexed as

AgedCross-Sectional StudiesDeliriumFeasibility StudiesFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPredictive Value of TestsPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsCancerDeliriumDetectionHospitalOncologyScreening

Identifiers

PMID33461523
PMCPMC7814717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.